Circumcision: Yea or Nay

Gungan Din: Thanks for the link. However, accompanying my reluctance to view photos of penises ( ), I'll need to investigate the sight when there's no threat of my family members wandering by and seeing the images on the computer screen.

 

heh, that owuld be quite funny, sounds like a topic for a short film: Boys' life ruined because of starwars themed circumscion discussion on theinternet

 

The longevity of this thread just proves how obsessed guys are with Mr Happy.

Lol.

This thread is a scream.

 

Mr. Happy makes the world go round

 

i try

 

"circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed"

That's not a recommendation against it...they would've left out "routinely," if that were the case.

They're saying it should not be a standard procedure with all male newborns. That it should be an elective procedure and parents should be "advised of the present state of medical knowledge about its benefits and harms."

They also acknowledge that parents still may base their decision solely "on personal, religious or cultural factors."

 

Valyn: View the photos at your own risk. I haven't even looked at them, so I have no idea what you will find.

This probably isn't a discussion you want to have with father: "What are you doing?" - "I'm just looking at pictures of penises. Look at all the different kinds of penises. Have you ever seen so many different penises, Dad?" Although, it might earn you a trip to a strip club (female, of course) or a couple of free pornos.


Nunquam: I guess we just interpret the same thing differently, although I think we both understand it to mean that circumcisions shouldn't be performed unless requested by the parents. At one point, circumcisions were performed unless the parents requested they not be, now they are not performed unless the parents request they be.

In February, the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Saskatchewan issued a more strongly worded memo to its members, clarifying its interpretation of the Canadian Paediatric Society's position. Some of the highlights of the memo are:

...There is a strong and growing consensus that medical intervention should be based upon sound evidence of expected benefit that outweighs the potential risk of any such intervention.

Where there is little evidence of expected benefit from a surgical procedure, but well recognized risk of surgical complications that may cause harm, it would generally be considered imprudent if not improper for a surgeon to perform such a surgical procedure.

Notwithstanding these fundamental principles, 27.6% of newborn males were circumcised in this province in 2000-2001, in spite of the fact that the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) has for two and a half decades explicitly cautioned against routine circumcision of newborn male infants...


...Such high infant circumcision rates in Saskatchewan in the face of an explicit caution from the CPS is of great concern to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and ought to be a concern to all physicians who perform the procedure...


...In my dialogue with Saskatchewan physicians about this issue, I?ve encountered many who claim to be ?neutral? in their opinion about routine circumcision, but perform the procedure strictly on the basis of parental preference...It is difficult to identify any other domain of medicine in which physicians would feel comfortable playing such a passive role in a decision pathway culminating in surgery. It is also difficult to identify any other domain of medicine in which practice patterns stand in such stark contrast to research evidence...


...These are my recommendations to you:

(1) First, be sure that you are fully and accurately informed about the research literature on this subject, which serves as the basis for the CPS position against routine circumcision of newborn male infants.

(2) In any dialogue you have with patients about potential circumcision of their newborn male infants, be sure that you accurately and effectively convey the message that this is not a recommended procedure.

(3) If parents remain adamant in their preference that circumcision be performed, notwithstanding their awareness of the research on the subject, remember that you are under no obligation to perform any surgical procedure for which there are not valid medical indications. You can, and should, respectfully decline to perform the procedure just as you respectfully decline to carry out other requested medical acts that you regard to be inappropriate.

(4) If the parental request for infant male circumcision is based exclusively upon religious beliefs and values, and you are inclined to act in deference to those religious beliefs and values, you would be prudent to require parental signature of a consent document which clearly stipulates that the circumcision in question is not medically indicated and is being performed in accordance with parental religious practices...

Based on this memo, it seems clear that their position is that the only time a doctor should consider perfor

 

Gungan Din: "This probably isn't a discussion you want to have with father: "What are you doing?" - "I'm just looking at pictures of penises. Look at all the different kinds of penises. Have you ever seen so many different penises, Dad?" Although, it might earn you a trip to a strip club (female, of course) or a couple of free pornos."

LMAO!

 

Quite frankly, I've spent way too much time reading about this, this weekend...

LOL! I was feeling the same way the other day, after reading through all the stuff on the Net! ("What the hell am I doing? I couldn't care less whether people circumcise or not!")

I guess that's the danger of visiting boards that are "issues-oriented."

 

*Jaxx stares at pictures of Mr. Happy from website*

*Mr. Jaxx walks in.*

Mr Jaxx: "Son, I think it's time we had a talk about the birds and the bees and OH MY GOD WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING???"

Jaxx: The birds want to know what the other birds look like!

Mr. Jaxx: OH MY GOD!

Jaxx: But why isn't my birdie like that birdie on the computer? Mine's facing down while that one is sticking straight out. Doesn't it get uncomfy in his undies?

Mr. Jaxx: Son, don't you want to see what the BEES look like?

Jaxx: Sure daddy!

Mr. Jaxx: I'm taking you to a strip club. Lemme get my jacket, wallet, and some singles. I'll be right back.

*Mr. Jaxx leaves*

Jaxx: (to himself) oh, God, this is too easy...

*Jaxx laughs*

 

If that were to happen to me, my dad would just kick me out of the house and claim that he never knew me (probably soon after strangling me).

 

i think i like the stripclub father better

 

GAJ, !!!

Funniest. Thread. Ever.

 

This thread is cool. We should resurrect it.
I think circumcision is horrible and cruel and should not be performed unless medically necessary. My boyfriend isn't circumcised and I have never had a problem with it. It takes a little getting used to, especially since I live in the Midwest and had never encountered one before, but it's actually much nicer than a circimcised one, in my opinion.

 

well, i think it was posted in here, that the midwest is the most circumcised place in america, and in the West in general apparently

 

I think circumcision is horrible and cruel and should not be performed unless medically necessary.

I am circumcised, and I think that it's touchy and hard to say when performed for religious purposes. But otherwise, don't do it.

Leviticus says "Make no cuts into your body". Deuteronomy says that any man without a snak shouldn't enter the presence of the lord. That is voluntarily without a snak.

However, I do not support modern circumcision. It's ghastly and despicable. However, if I do get marreid and my wife becomes pregnant, I will pray about it. Prayer. That is what I will do.

Also, I would never inflict the barbaic thing that happened to me upon my sons. Never. I would rather that they go uncircumcised, which is fine according to the New Testament, than than they have their foreskin removed.

However, I will consider the old circumcision(Cut into the foreskin rather than removal) for my sons if I feel that God has led me to do it.

That's what I have decided after reading this thread.

Also, how can it be medically necessary? Since when is circumcision medically nevessary in any situation?

 

There's a condition called phimosis. There's other treatments for it, but circumcision is sometimes necessary.

 

Okay.

Thanks.

I never really understood the chapter Frustration in 3001: Final Odyssey until recently.

Frank Poole is having trouble getting girls because he is circumcised. I didn't really catch that until recently.

Arthur C. Clarke did make a very good statement on this:

"God designed us: circumcision is blasphemy."

 

Because I am a Christian, I follow Christian law, which is in the New Testament.

Jewish law is in the OT. God had circumcision "developed" to physically seperate ONLY the Jews from everyone else.

When Jewish and Christian law take on the same issue, Christian law is the authority.

Obi_Zahn, if you read parts of Paul's books, he makes it clear that the only circumcision that matters in Christianity is the circumcision of the heart (cutting off of sinful ways).

Because all people of all backrounds can be Christians, circumcision is no longer required after the New Testament.

Mr. Happy can be either way, because God cares about the condition of the heart and soul over the body....then again there is the whole tattoo debate..........

My apologies to any athiests, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. who do not share or care about my beliefs.

 

Uppers.

This is one of the most intelligent and insightful debates that I have read on this board.

 

When Jewish and Christian law take on the same issue, Christian law is the authority.

Yeah, for Christians. There's no requirement for them to circumcise, so I can't imagine why any of them do.

For Jews, Jewish law is the authority. And that includes circumcision. Let them practice their religion as they see fit and have been doing for thousands of years. They are not forcing the issue on non-Jews.

For Muslims, Muslim law is the authority. And I believe that also includes circumcision. Let them practice their religion as they see fit and have been doing for hundreds of years. They are not forcing the issue on non-Muslims.

I really don't see where the controversy is.

 

who cares? the baby wont remember the few minutes of pain right after its born, and even if he does, he can save it for the therapist.
hey, if it doesnt affect his sex life, why is it an issue?

 

READ THIS: IMPORTANT INFO ABOUT CIRCUMCISSION


The American Academy of Pediatrics has determined that circumcission is medically unnecessary and is no longer advising doctors to perform them.

There is no medical necessity to circumcise a child, it is a form of child abuse and as such, circumcissions should be made illegal. If for whatever reason you want to have a piece of your penis cut off later in life, that's your business and you're entitled to self-mutilation. But no one has the right to cut away healthy skin just for some peer ideal or religious practice.

Think about this: Female circumcission (while more traumatic than male circumcission) is illegal. Even though it's part of some cultural and even religious practices. Why is it illegal to cut a female and yet it's OK to cut a male? It's NOT and people need to wake up and really consider what's going on here.

This procedure is one of the most horrible and barbaric practices ever devised on children. It is incredibly painful and destructive of the mother-child bonding that is so important in the first few days of the child's life.

The procedure is also not without its' own dangers. Any mistake and a child could be sexually damaged for the rest of his life. Why take that chance? Is it worth the risk to ruin your son's sex life simply because you thought circumcission was the way to go? It's NOT, so for his life, don't take that risk.

Later in life, it's been proven that guys who are circumcised feel less sexual pleasure than non-circumcised guys. The foreskin protects the glan and keeps it moist and sensitive to sexual stimulation. The bundle of nerves housed in the foreskin allow a man to feel an incredible amount of sexual pleasure and cutting that away would eliminate a whole level of sexual enjoyment.

A recent study has also proven that women who have sex with men who are NOT circumsized have more orgasms. So not only is being uncut better for a man, it's also better for a woman's enjoyment.

Circumcission is a rarity in Europe and it is falling out of favor with parents and doctors here in the U.S. And thank God for that.

My mother had the good sense not to circumcise me and I'm quite thankful for it. For the love of your children, don't cut them either.

 

Anyone disagree with me?

 

Think about this: Female circumcission (while more traumatic than male circumcission) is illegal. Even though it's part of some cultural and even religious practices. Why is it illegal to cut a female and yet it's OK to cut a male?


To answer your question: Female circumcision is the removal of the clitoris and in most cases the inner labia. In many cases at the time the young girl is circumcised she is also infibulated. Infibulation entails the sewing of the outer labia, sometimes to the point where urine and menstrual fluid cannot pass through. You can just imagine how much fun it is to reopen the wound for sexual intercourse. There is also a high risk of infection and death during these procedures because they are often done in unsanitary conditions.

Now, whether or not someone agrees with male circumcision, I do not believe anyone can honestly say that female circumsion is equivalent to male circumcision. In order for it to remotely be the equivalent, male circumcision would include removing the glans. Males who have been circumcised are able to lead active, healthy, sexual lifestyles. Women who have been circumcised are often left with pain and are generally unable to enjoy sex to its fullest.